Wilder v Fa'afunua [2024] SBHC 82; HCSI-CC 389 of 2023 (12 July 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Wilder v Fa’afunua
Citation:
Date of decision:	12 July 2024
Parties:	Agnes Niuale Polau Wilder v Moddy Fa’afunua
Date of hearing:	3 July 2024
Court file number(s):	389 of 2023
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Aulanga PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The application for summary judgment against the Defendant is granted. 2. The Defendant shall deliver vacant possession of the land in fixed term parcel number 192-004-1789 to the Claimant within 30 days. 3. The Defendant, its employees, servants or agents or persons acting under its instructions shall evict from fixed term parcel number 192-004-1789 to the Claimant within 30 days. 4. The Defendant, its employees, servants or agents or persons acting under its instructions to remove all houses, fixtures, chattels and personal properties from fixed term parcel number 192-004-1789 within 30 days. 5. That upon expiry of the time in order 3, all the fixtures, chattels and personal properties within fixed term parcel number 192-004-1789 shall be vested in the Claimant. 6. Costs of this hearing is to be paid by the Defendant on standard basis.
Representation:	Mr H. Waisanau for the Claimant Mr. F. Samani for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:	Golden Springs Ltd v Paia [1999] SBCA 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 389 of 2023

BETWEEN

AGNES NIUALE POLAU WILDER
Claimant

AND:

MODDY FA’AFUNUA
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 3 July 2024
Date of Ruling: 12 July 2024

Mr. H. Waisanau for the Claimant
Mr. F. Samani for the Defendant

RULING

AULANGA PJ

1. The Claimant applies for enter summary judgment against the Defendant. She holds the title to the registered land, the subject of this proceeding, after having bought it from Solution Max Limited, the former lessee of the property. It is not in dispute that the purchase and sale of the property was formally approved and endorsed by Solution Max Limited with evidence of the minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting already before this Court.
2. The Defendant lives in a two-bedroom house on that property. But she does not hold the title to the land. She asserts that she bought the land from Sir Allan Kemakeza, one of the Directors of Solution Max Limited. That assertion does not have supportive evidence from the company or even from Sir Kemakeza. There was no fraud, mistake or rectification of the title pleaded in the defence. Only the process surrounding the transfer of the property was pleaded and raised in defence.
3. Since the application is for summary judgment, I must consider it in light of the principles governing summary judgment in this jurisdiction. There was an earlier ruling on the default judgment application, however, I must consider this matter afresh in the confines of summary judgment application. For this application, the only issue for me to decide is whether summary judgment should be granted.
4. The Defendant did not provide any sworn statement from Sir Kemakeza to support the defence or the response to the application. However, I am required by law to look at the merit of the defence and make a decision on the application.
5. Essentially, her defence was, she was a bonafide purchaser of the land registered parcel number 192-004-1789 from Solution Max limited for $15,000 well before the transfer of the land to the Defendant. Further, she was advised by Sir Kemakeza not to move out of the land. She also asserts in defence that the process of transferring the land to the Claimant was not proper. There was no specific description of the act of transfer of the land considered dubious or improper or reference to any section of the Land and Titles Act said to have been breached by the Claimant.
6. It is important to note that the history of the Entry No. of the land parcel number 192-004-1789 showed that it was registered in the name of Solution Max Limited in 1999 and not Sir Allan Kemakeza. It was a company’s property and not under an individual person’s name. In 2023, it was then registered to the Claimant. Since it is a company’s property, any devolution, transfer or sale of the company’s property must be approved by the company through its Board of Director’s meeting. The Defendant unfortunately did not have such evidence.
7. In contrast, the Claimant has the evidence from the Minutes of a meeting of the Directors of Max Solution Limited on 1^st May 2023 in “ANP-1” that discloses the following:
   • “Resolved to accept the transfer of Fixed – Term Estate Parcel Number 192-004-1789 from Solution Max Limited to Agnes Nuale Polau Wilder for a consideration sum of fifty thousand ($50,000). The vendor herein voluntarily offers to sell and the purchaser agrees to buy. The buyer shall pay all the required stamp duty.”
8. The Minutes further revealed that the company will facilitate all paper works for the transfer of the land to the Claimant.
9. While the Defendant asserts that she has paid the land from Sir Kemakeza as one of the Directors of the company Solution Max Limited, unfortunately, there is no evidence that the money has reached the company with approval given for the sale of the land to the Defendant. It may well be the case that the sale of the land by Sir Kemakeza was done fraudulently and without the notice or consent of the company.
10. When I looked at the defence and in the light of the omission to raise fraud or mistake or omission in the defence, the Claimant indefeasibility of title must remain intact. In line with the authority in Golden Springs Ltd v Paia [1999] SBCA 11, this is a clear case that I must enter summary judgment against the Defendant without going to trial.
11. The application for summary judgment by the Claimant is granted. The orders sought for in the claim will be granted summarily without trial. Cost of this hearing is to be paid by the Defendant on standard basis.

Orders

1. The application for summary judgment against the Defendant is granted.
2. The Defendant shall deliver vacant possession of the land in fixed term parcel number 192-004-1789 to the Claimant within 30 days.
3. The Defendant, its employees, servants or agents or persons acting under its instructions shall evict from fixed term parcel number 192-004-1789 to the Claimant within 30 days.
4. The Defendant, its employees, servants or agents or persons acting under its instructions to remove all houses, fixtures, chattels and personal properties from fixed term parcel number 192-004-1789 within 30 days.
5. That upon expiry of the time in order 3, all the fixtures, chattels and personal properties within fixed term parcel number 192-004-1789 shall be vested in the Claimant.
6. Costs of this hearing is to be paid by the Defendant on standard basis.

THE COURT
Augustine Sylver Aulanga
PUISNE JUDGE